This is a blog for people interested in church discipline with a focus on the mechanics and the practical impact, not the theology. It is to serve the community of people who are subject to church discipline or recovering from it, so the discussions here view discipline from a member's not from a pastor's perspective. Comments from pastors, people who themselves have been involved in any capacity, have information about it, or just would like to discuss discipline are all very welcome.

Friday, January 6, 2012

This image is large and may not be laying out clearly on your browser. Try clicking on the image to see it better, and magnify if you need to. Or click on this link to download or view isolated. I had originally put this image together up to about the year 1000 for a debate on Christian origins. I got inspired to expand when I had to discuss origins of the Reformation and ideas from it. I think this is a useful reference post, and also might lead to some good discussion.

Because the reformation is so huge, I had to limit scope. At this point the chart covers the origins of the those sects that came to America from England, the English reformation and development. It doesn't include the minor dissenting sects that don't appear to have had influence on America.

Arrows are for strong influence or descent, these sects are interacting with one another and passing ideas between them just as religions today do. Coloring of the arrows is to help reduce visual complexity, and it doesn't mean anything beyond that. Where possible I've tried to include a sample work in parenthesis for each sect making it clear how I'm using the term and also demonstrating at a glance the evolution in thought. It is also for the early part, letting the chart do double duty explicating the origins of the bible.

In terms of the colors of the circles:

Salmon is for groups that are Jewish sects. They may have Christian aspects but they are not yet meaningfully Christian and are in some sense fundamentally Jewish or Samaritan.Light Blue are proto-Christianities. Yellow are full blown alternate Christianities, from ancient times. "Gnosticism" used in the religious sense.Purple is for groups that I can meaningfully call Catholic, western or eastern rite.Pink groups that broke away Catholicism. Sects that I would agree are "schismatic".Dark Olive Green non-Christian religions.Yellow-Green is for non-Christian groups with strong Christian influence.Muddy Pink I'm using for Hermetic Christianity. Dark-Brown for proto-ProtestantismRed-Brown for ProtestantismMagenta for the non-creedal sects of the Radical Reformation and their descendants
___

A few things worth noting.

Christianity originated from a variety Jewish and Samaritan cults, which were not part of the mainstream nor the branch that survived.

Catholicism represents a coming together of various groups. An early partial consensus, not some sort of original revelation.

Christianity has always been highly diverse.

The elements of the Protestant Reformation are very old. In a way, the Cathari and the Beguines are the father and mother of the reformation, with Christian Humanism playing an important role. Everything develops from the 13th century combination of:

primitivism

a desire for a lay church

a theological neo-gnosticism lite

trying to fight their way to the surface for the next 300 years. While the specifics in classical Landmarkism are a bit off, the general idea of Christian primitivism are quite correct. In terms of remaining issues there are two that bother me. The first is that the Catholic section is terrible. Originally the chart just covered Catholic development up to the ancient world, so I only needed a 1/2 dozen Catholic sects. This one covers Catholicism in the middle ages, so to do it justice I'd probably need over a 100 sects and the diagram would be a sea of purple with a border in the other colors. I think top priority for the next round, is a full treatment of the origins of the Eastern Sects.

The other is I'm not sure about the Ebionites and the Elkasaites. If anyone has any suggestions there about the relationship please jump in. I think I'm going to need to jump into some Dead Sea Scrolls material to work this out.

26 comments:

This is a very interesting chart. My impression is that there's no way you can accurately show 1700 years of Christian development in one image. There's just too many movements and way too much going on. You kind of acknowledge that with the geographic lensing that happens in your chart: it goes from covering Christianity everywhere to just Western Europe/America.

I'd recommend you treat the Reformation as another starting point. Just like you did for the Christian Origins image, show the pre-Lutheran streams of Catholic/Schismatic/etc. thought that influenced the Reformers and go from there.

An example of this "lensing" that I'm talking about is how halfway through and beyond you have "Russian Orthodox", "Dutch Catholic" and "English Catholic", etc. showing up without any paternity. Obviously those groups of Christians were heavily influenced from somebody higher up the chart.

it goes from covering Christianity everywhere to just Western Europe/America

It's worse than that. It ends with just covering America essentially, the sects that came over from England.

An example of this "lensing" that I'm talking about is how halfway through and beyond you have "Russian Orthodox", "Dutch Catholic" and "English Catholic", etc. showing up without any paternity. Obviously those groups of Christians were heavily influenced from somebody higher up the chart.

I agree. Yeah it is a problem. If you look at the green, the non Christians I break continuity with them. For example I don't show a relationship between the Greek Hellenists that influence Hellenistic Judaism and the Cybil cult that influences Montanism. I just drop "green" in where ever I need it. After the Benedictines I start doing something like that to the Catholics, the purple part. I think the Catholics are about a 1000 more circles to get right.

Just to pick your examples. With the Dutch catholics I have this weird sort of Scandinavian Christianity which believes in Jesus as a manifestation of Thor. So he believe he is crucified but his triumph over death on the cross isn't a resurrection but not dying at all. Clearly these sects have no current day impact, but... they play a huge role in the Christianity of 800-1200 in that part of the world.

England remember is cut off for a century and a half and partially repaganizes. So I have 3-5 entire religions that merge to become English Catholicism of the 8th century. But again by the 12th or so, there are no major theological differences between English and Spanish Catholicism. I think the English stuff might be interesting in itself.

It is a lot of work. I think I may try some sub charts.

Just like you did for the Christian Origins image, show the pre-Lutheran streams of Catholic/Schismatic/etc. thought that influenced the Reformers and go from there.

I actually figured I had done that. I kinda did hit, the major streams of thought. Is there too much detail above to see it? Monastic Theurgy, Beguines, Cathari are the biggies (at least from my POV). Everything develops from the 13th century combination of:

primitivisma desire for a lay churchtheological neo-gnosticismtrying to fight their way to the surface for the next 300 years.

I actually figured I had done that. I kinda did hit, the major streams of thought. Is there too much detail above to see it? Monastic Theurgy, Beguines, Cathari are the biggies (at least from my POV). Everything develops from the 13th century combination of:

primitivisma desire for a lay churchtheological neo-gnosticismtrying to fight their way to the surface for the next 300 years.

If that isn't coming through...

I don't see that in this chart. I see a Christian Origins chart attached to a Protestant Origins chart by the "Benedictine Catholicism/Western Catholic Church". Sure there are other connections falling down, but everything under that is connected at that point. If the story you want to tell starts in 1200AD, then why go back to 200BC? Or, if the groups in the 13th century were trying to re-create a primitive church, shouldn't there be direct influence from top to bottom?

This chart actually seems like a strong refutation of any claim to primitive Christian descent for any Medieval or Early Modern non-Catholic group. All 2nd millennium groups that want to return to the early church get their ideas/descent from the Catholic Church and non-Christian ideas like "Islamic Hermetics", "Neo-Platanism", and "Adamites".

and of course one of the great grandparents are the Cathari. The argument I was making for the second half of the chart was explaining how those early middle ages heresies led to the reformation.

Cathari -> Esoteric Christianity -> Christian Humanism -> Lutherans

or Cathari -> Brethern -> Hussite -> Lutherans

As contrasted with the argument that the chain was simple:

Early Catholicism -> Benedictine Catholicism -> Lutheranism.

I.E. what I was trying to refute in the 2nd half was the idea that the reformation was nothing more than a schism from Catholicism.

And then you can follow Cathari up to sects that are not in the Catholic chain:

Cathari -> Bogomils -> Manichaeism -> Bardaisanites

And you are back to a 2nd century sect which is Christian and non Catholic. I agree that is a lot of levels though. What's interesting to me is the gnostic thing that survived most strongly in Protestantism was the attitude: suspicion of tradition, distrust of authority, dislike for dogma and objective statements of faith, pitting of the individual against the institution. What hasn't made it into Protestantism (yet?) is the actual theological writings from early Christianity that are consistent with this attitude.

The story for the top half is similar in the Christianity is a merging of 4 different ideas in Judaism: Essene Sethianism, Essene Sophia worship, Jewish logos sects and messianic magical cults. I certainly would never say that Protestantism is a return to those early sects. Those sects are essentially incomprehensible the cultural chasm is so large. I think most Christians would believe themselves to have much more in common with a muslim than if they actually met one of those primitive Jewish sects.

So I'd agree with your statement, "All 2nd millennium groups that want to return to the early church get their ideas/descent from the Catholic Church and non-Christian ideas like "Islamic Hermetics", "Neo-Platanism", and "Adamites". "You are absolutely correct the chart refutes the idea that anything remotely like Protestants were running around in the 1st and 2nd century. The thing running around in the 2nd century that is closest to Protestantism is Catholicism.

I agree that argument about Protestantism being like the early church is frequently made, mainly because Protestants haven't actually read much (if anything) from the early church. I think you would be hard pressed to find a 1st or 2nd century Christian who could even understand what the 5 solas would have meant, much less believe that was the gospel.

That makes a lot of sense to me. Basically the later groups are influenced and borrow ideas from earlier extinct groups, but even where there is influence/descent there are still theological and social differences (and as time goes on these differences grow).

So how should I interpret this statement:

While the specifics in classical Landmarkism are a bit off, the general idea of Christian primitivism are quite correct.

While the specifics in classical Landmarkism are a bit off, the general idea of Christian primitivism are quite correct.

Doesn't that disagree with the chart as well as our discussion?

Let me give you another chart, that I think might clarify schismatic view. This chart argues that there is only one church and that every sect came from that one church.

So for example Ebionites I have emerging from Judaism directly, and in fact pre-existing the Catholic church. They aren't a schism from the Catholic church, Roman Christianity, an early form of Catholicism, is a schism from them; if we are going to use the language of "schism" instead of the language of "developed" or "evolved".

Going a little for a later sects like Priscillianism, I have that as a 3th cousin to the Catholic church each having little to do with one another. I'm actually in agreement with Catholic encyclopedia here about origins, we both think that Priscillianism was a "schism" from Manichaeism and had evolved outside the Catholic church, so I'm not being anti-Catholic in my data. The position being put forward by Catholic apologists is one that even the Catholic encyclopedia would reject.

And you can see similarly things with sects that survive to today, like Islam. That comes from a branch that forms when the Encratites split into the Collyridians (parent of of Islam) and the Syriac Christians (grandparents of medieval Catholicism).

In other words there really are distinct branches of Christianity that develop through time. That in my mind is the core concept in Landmarkism.

The second core concept is that the Cathari are in fact a common parent of all Protestants. When people like Foxe (writing in the 16th century) traced their origin to them they were correct. There really were groups associated with 16th century Protestantism like Lollards and Adamites which were not originating from Luther. And for that matter Luther himself is a great grandchild of the Cathari two different ways.

However, and I think this is what you meant, while it was true 16th century that there were Protestants running around that were cousins of Lutheranism, and not descendants, it is not true today. Every group associated with Protestantism today is descended from Luther. Even things that are not on the chart (since I stopped at the start of he 18th century) which seem very far from Protestantism like Wicca descend from Luther.

And thank you for forcing me to think through what I really meant by that Landmark comment!

I'm glad I could help you work out your thoughts! I had assumed that "Landmarkism" was the name for the ideas expressed in the "Trail of Blood" linked at the bottom of your post. In your earlier post you had a quote from a English Baptist claiming that Baptists are the first Christians. Implicitly this means that other Christians are off-shoots of Baptists (or perhaps illegitimate usurpers like the Israelite:Samaritan relationship). That view is similar to the view expressed in the "Called to Communion" chart you posted in the comments, except for Catholics instead of Baptists.

To me your charts basically say that there is an incredible diversity in Christian thought, and that the only groups with continuity back through history are the ones that could rely on the coercive power of the state the persist and grow.

You mentioned earlier something that I think is interesting:

What's interesting to me is the gnostic thing that survived most strongly in Protestantism was the attitude: suspicion of tradition, distrust of authority, dislike for dogma and objective statements of faith, pitting of the individual against the institution. What hasn't made it into Protestantism (yet?) is the actual theological writings from early Christianity that are consistent with this attitude.

I think you mentioned earlier on your blog that you thought that a major church was going to canonize a gnostic gospel (the Gospel of Thomas, say) sometime in the next century. I don't see how it happens, why would someone suspicious of authority and tradition go back 1700 years to get their theology?

Implicitly this means that other Christians are off-shoots of Baptists (or perhaps illegitimate usurpers like the Israelite:Samaritan relationship). That view is similar to the view expressed in the "Called to Communion" chart you posted in the comments, except for Catholics instead of Baptists.

In general no, Landmarkists believe that these churches existed in parallel. They can't deny the existence, dominance and continuity of the Catholic church so what they argue instead is that the sects existed alongside the Catholic church.

To me your charts basically say that there is an incredible diversity in Christian thought, and that the only groups with continuity back through history are the ones that could rely on the coercive power of the state the persist and grow.

I would agree with that characterization. That is an entirely fair way to put it as well. America is an interesting laboratory for religions because you have several hundred years with little to no state coercion.

A chart like this for America might be interesting. But in America you have weird crossing between religions, this terrific religious soup where Jews even end up acting like a Christian sect. So for example Reform Judaism picks up ideas indirectly from heretical Puritans and feeds them back into the Holyness movement. I'd have to think about how to diagram that.

I think you mentioned earlier on your blog that you thought that a major church was going to canonize a gnostic gospel (the Gospel of Thomas, say) sometime in the next century. I don't see how it happens, why would someone suspicious of authority and tradition go back 1700 years to get their theology?

Great question.

The Gospel of Thomas is not tradition for Christians today, it is an anti-tradition. Anti-traditions are a way of attacking tradition while undercutting its greatest strength, being old. The "when God was a woman" movement last generation which fed Wicca is a good example of that. The people who were creating Wicca were arguing that Wicca was not a late 19th century (at best) creation but rather a religion that predated Judaism much less Christianity.

As for authority, Thomas undermines the types of authorities that Western Christians are mad at.

I guess what I'm getting at is that even if they acknowledge that Catholics have been around for a very long time, they still believe that Catholics have been "wrong" (on church government or infant baptism, for example) for that time as well. I think we're really stumbling over a normative v. positive interpretation of this belief.

I guess what I'm getting at is that even if they acknowledge that Catholics have been around for a very long time, they still believe that Catholics have been "wrong" (on church government or infant baptism, for example) for that time as well. I think we're really stumbling over a normative v. positive interpretation of this belief.

I thought you were Catholic. Thanks for the link. But your comments on this thread, regarding diversity and so forth didn't sound it.

Do you mean "legitimacy" [of the reformation] in a political sense or a theological one?

Actually both.

In a political sense. To pick another similar example, "When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.".

The failures of the reformers like the Franciscans who were inside the church legitimized schism. The Albigensian Crusade proved that peaceful schism would be impossible. So that the next round of reformists Christianity would have to be one that can appeal to people in control of large armies.

Many of Protestantisms worst traits, developed from the military necessity of appealing to greedy nobles. Further, the Reformation involved a lot of violence towards the Catholic church. Essentially starting and fighting a war.

So in other words, if we contract Erasmus' approach to Luther's... while we certainly might applaud Erasmus' temperament, ultimately Luther did was necessary.

In terms of theology... Innocent III decided to handle a political / theological challenge via. depopulating a huge chunk of France. The sort of act that Pol Pot is condemned for. Today that region holds about 3.8m people to put the degree of violence in some sort of modern perspective. That then had to be followed up with the creation of a permanent secret police force to prevent future uprisings (the inquisition).

To my mind killing on that scale cannot be anything but a vital matter of faith and morals. Given how morally appalling it was, I can't see this as anything other than error on a vital matter of faith and morals. Either we have a version of morality where men like Pol Pot are moral giants and men like Jesus criminals, or what happened then was grievous institutional sin.

At the time of the reformation, and to this day, the church argues they handled this correctly....

I was talking about what your chart shows. It really does emphasize ideas/sects - each one gets a similarly sized bubble. Given how much the Church Fathers wrote about heretics, I think its undeniable that there were many people (or a least influential people) holding those views. Given how hard it is to get adherents numbers for the modern day (let alone centuries ago), however, we'll never know how many peopled belonged to each group or held each idea.

With regards to the Crusades and the Inquisition the Church has acknowledged that what it did was wrong. Cold comfort for the souls of those who died long ago, I know. Certainly the way the Church has been forced out of public life (it exists as a diminishing force everywhere in the West) has the feeling of Divine judgment -- punishing the Church to the Nth generation for the way it has acted.

It really does emphasize ideas/sects - each one gets a similarly sized bubble.

Yeah I think we talked about this before. Bubble size is set according to the amount of text. It doesn't mean anything useful.

With regards to the Crusades and the Inquisition the Church has acknowledged that what it did was wrong.

Not entirely. The church still holds that it is the authority on matters of morals, and the state is obligated to promote the moral. The Catholic church's position is that western government have developed a doctrine of an atheistic state.

So in general when I try and press to get details of what specifically the church believes it did wrong in the crusades and the inquisition I have a tough time getting to any sort of broad charge.

Generally the degree of regret is fairly limited, that due process was rather imperfect in implementation. To put this in modern terms the church admits it did a terrible job scaling up when it came to large scale outbreaks of heresy, but it has never argued that the entire idea of secular punishment for heresy are inappropriate. In fact it charges the current government with neglect for allowing heresies to flourish.

I can site a bunch of papel bills up until rather recently and going back a 1000 years which all carry a similar message, if you want to go down this road.

Vatican II is more than a footnote in this story. If you want to know what the Church is apologizing for when she expresses regret over the Crusades, the Inquisition, the colonization of America, etc. then you might benefit from a quick glance at Dignitatis Humanae:

2. This Vatican Council declares that the human person has a right to religious freedom. This freedom means that all men are to be immune from coercion on the part of individuals or of social groups and of any human power, in such wise that no one is to be forced to act in a manner contrary to his own beliefs, whether privately or publicly, whether alone or in association with others, within due limits.

This means that even if you get convicted of "first degree" heresy by a jury of your peers with all the trappings of a fair trial it would still be wrong to throw you in jail.

I'm sure you can list all those bulls because I'm aware they exist. Painfully aware.

Returning to the topic of this post, I can see two entries that might need adjusting. The first is that you've got the Jesuits influencing the Utraquists, while I think the Utraquists appeared a century or so before the Jesuits. Also, I see that you've got the Dominicans "strongly influenced" by or "descending" from the Cathars, while I think the only reason why they are related is that St. Dominic started the Order or Preachers to convert the Cathars back to Catholicism. They're more related to other mendicant orders like the Franciscans, Carmelites, and Augustinians, who are on your chart as well.

I'm not sure if we want to get into the nuts and bolts here. The church is to some extent trying to have it both ways.

Take for example paragraph 1.4 of Dignitatis Humanae Religious freedom, in turn, which men demand as necessary to fulfill their duty to worship God, has to do with immunity from coercion in civil society. Therefore it leaves untouched traditional Catholic doctrine on the moral duty of men and societies toward the true religion and toward the one Church of Christ.

and Injury therefore is done to the human person and to the very order established by God for human life, if the free exercise of religion is denied in society, provided just public order is observed.” was designed to provide some wiggle room. Certainly in both Spain and Colombia the Catholic church advanced human freedom. And actions count.

But you are actually agreeing with traditionalists in arguing that Vatican II repudiated the prior teachings, rather than just showed some development...

Jesuits influencing the Utraquists, while I think the Utraquists appeared a century or so before the Jesuits.

Thanks for the comment, agreed. Here is what I was thinking. The Ultraquists live on and the Jesuits, during the counter reformation have a lot to do with how the sect develops. Further the Ultraquists are negotiating with Rome, factions that will eventually become the Jesuits.

Maybe I'm oversimplifying a bit here. I can see the objection, but it is hard to represent several hundred years of Ultraquists history with one circle and... they are only part of the main story line in that Hussites break into 3 factions... and they are one of them.

Hus' influence on the Luther and the Taborite (another one of the 3) are the two that show up in later acts.

Also, I see that you've got the Dominicans "strongly influenced" by or "descending" from the Cathars, while I think the only reason why they are related is that St. Dominic started the Order or Preachers to convert the Cathars back to Catholicism.

Actually it is more than that. Dominic is trying to create an orthodox form of Catharism. It is not by the display of power and pomp, cavalcades of retainers, and richly-houseled palfreys, or by gorgeous apparel, that the heretics win proselytes; it is by zealous preaching, by apostolic humility, by austerity, by seeming, it is true, but by seeming holiness. Zeal must be met by zeal, humility by humility, false sanctity by real sanctity, preaching falsehood by preaching truth."

But you are actually agreeing with traditionalists in arguing that Vatican II repudiated the prior teachings, rather than just showed some development...

Without knowing what the content theological discussions between the CDF and SSPX I wouldn't go that far. I haven't spent nearly enough time looking at this aspect of Church history to develop my own opinion. Pope Benedict XVI seems to think that the Council can be understood in continuity with the past, and he was there.

Your understanding of Catholic doctrine and intramural controversies is truly remarkable. How did you develop this knowledge?

Thank you. Nice of you to say! I run a discipline blog I try and understand the various sects as best I can. I like traditionalists because they often give you a different view of Catholic doctrine than the mainstream. Been a pleasure dialoguing with you on this.

As far as Benedict seeing it as compatible... I see this as sort of like the trinity or hypostatic union. Take contradictory statements declare them all to be true and declare them not to conflict. I've seen arguments that they don't conflict but ultimately their not conflicting comes down to a declaration of faith that truth can't contradict truth and all the statements came from councils.... On the other hand most Christians do accept the trinity and it is no worse as far as conflict.

On the discipline front, is Catholic practice different from Protestant practice?

Absolutely, very different. The Catholic church is an international organization with a large and diverse membership. There are no Protestant churches that have remotely similar problems to the Catholic church.

Protestant churches had their big left/right schism starting in the 1920s with the "fundamentalist / modernist controversy" and ending around the 1990s with the end of the "4th Great awakening" (move of large number of mainline Protestants to evangelical churches). The Catholic church in the USA has been working for almost a century to avoid a left / right schism.

So for example, like the liberal churches in the US the discipline is focused mainly on the pastorate (and professors in Catholic colleges) and there is almost none on the membership. On the other hand, the discipline is almost all conservative in nature. On the third hand, every possibility to avoid excommunications.

There was an attempt to prevent the American Bishops from taking liberal stands and slowly they have been made more conservative. This slow conservatism has been demoralizing and the generation to generation statistics (baptisms, marriages in the church) are atrocious.

Conversely discipling churches in the United States are primarily small sects which are mostly indifferent to dissenters going into schism. The OPC (Orthodox Presbyterian Church) practices discipline, and quite often against members. But they happily acknowledge they formed as a sect of what is today the PCUSA and make no pretense of trying to join up. Rather they discuss possible mergers with other right wing Presbyterian churches. OPC discipline is essentially specific to a particular church.

Even for bigger denominations this is still the case. So for example the LDS still practices heavy church discipline. The RLDS is a sort of a liberal LDS whose theology has been diverging from the LDS since the 1840s and is now comfortably part of the NCC. The LDS is happy when liberals quit and join the RLDS. The RLDS is happy when people of a fundamentalist bent go off and join some other sect.

The Roman Catholic church is still quite catholic (small-c) which gives its discipline a different feel. I don't know if that will last as the church becomes more sectarian but it is certainly the case today.

There was an attempt to prevent the American Bishops from taking liberal stands and slowly they have been made more conservative. This slow conservatism has been demoralizing and the generation to generation statistics (baptisms, marriages in the church) are atrocious.

Do you mean among American Protestant (Episcopalian, Lutheran, Methodist, etc.) bishops or among Catholic bishops? Because from the news it sounds like the trend in Protestant episcopal leadership is going the other way, with the mainline churches in the US and the West becoming steadily more liberal with time. The narrative fits better on the Catholic side, where bishops are appointed and there has definitely been a preference for more conservative bishops over the last 20-30 years. But the story is the same in both mainline & Catholic churches: ignoring immigration the numbers point down on everything but funerals.

How does the Catholic Church's "catholic feel" set it apart? Do you mean that there is more liberty for individual opinion inside the Catholic Church than there would be in any other church (ignoring that the various other churches themselves fall on an enormous spectrum wider than allowable belief in the Catholic Church)?

Taking a step back, I guess I don't even know what makes someone subject to discipline. Does this just cover doctrinal disagreements or is it also scandals & immorality?

Do you mean among American Protestant (Episcopalian, Lutheran, Methodist, etc.) bishops or among Catholic bishops? Because from the news it sounds like the trend in Protestant episcopal leadership is going the other way, with the mainline churches in the US and the West becoming steadily more liberal with time.

In that context among Catholic Bishops. And I'd say the opposite that the mainline churches are becoming noticeably less liberal. In the 1970-90s the conservatives were all moving to Evangelical churches. The mass migrations are now slightly in favor of the mainline churches. Evangelical churches are now conservatives and mainline congregations are by and large moderate. It is that moderation that is causing these social changes to be so agonizing and divisive.

Those congregations work nicely as a point of comparison. From here on out I'll use c-bishop for Catholic bishops and p-bishop for Protestant bishops for clarity.

But the story is the same in both mainline & Catholic churches: ignoring immigration the numbers point down on everything but funerals.

Nope. Mainline churches had 2 generations of tremendous shrinkage and now are holding steady and for some even some good growth. Activity is going up, and their membership is getting younger. Mainly that's coming from 2nd generation evangelicals leaving evangelical churches, and intermarried Catholics.

The Catholic situation is different. You have Hispanic Catholics which are a growing population but with an a Pentecostal movement that might start to erode their numbers like it has in some places in Latin America. Among the non-hispanic population the fall offs are terrible. Prior to this generation even marginal Catholics identified with the church enough to marry in the church and baptize their children in the church. That is no longer true.

I dealt with the data and have links on the inflows and outflows: Michael Bell. In terms of the baptism and statistics, I haven't done a post on this because I don't have much to say other than what Catholic demographers have been saying since the early 1980s. Humanae Vitae demoralized the membership and fundamentally changed, and is still changing, their ecclesiology.

But that has not too much to do with Church Discipline. I'll hit those in the next post.

How does the Catholic Church's "catholic feel" set it apart? Do you mean that there is more liberty for individual opinion inside the Catholic Church than there would be in any other church (ignoring that the various other churches themselves fall on an enormous spectrum wider than allowable belief in the Catholic Church)?

Let me give you another post which describes my ake on the fundamentalist / modernist controversy Machen. The important thing to understand is this hit all the mainline denominations, but did not hit the Catholic church. The Catholic church never went through this, they get to live in an alternate world where the fundamentalist / modernist schism never happened and instead the church had to struggle with the social problems of the 20th century with neither conservatives nor liberals excluded from the conversation. The Catholic church aims to be a universal church and not appeal to just a narrow segment of the population. They are working much harder than most other churches in the USA to avoid schism and that colors everything they do.

Discipline is most often used by churches that see themselves as isolated to help draw firm lines for their sectarian membership. In terms of minister discipline it is most often used to by:

a) right wing churches to avoid moves to the left

b) though sometimes used by left wing churches to prevent exclusion (for example discipling racially insensitive or "homophobic" ministers).

in the case of the Catholic church minister discipline is exercised to prevent the left from doing provocative things which are seen by the right as heresy or apostasy. That is they want to prevent Pearl Bucks (assuming you read the link above) from emerging. That is the very purpose of discipline is not to draw lines to exclude but to draw lines to maximally include.

____

Now in terms of member discipline the big issue for the Catholic church is remarriage after divorce and divorce. And that is a good example of what member discipline looks like. The church wants to prohibit a practice and creates hurdles to full participation if someone engages in this practice.

I guess I don't even know what makes someone subject to discipline. Does this just cover doctrinal disagreements or is it also scandals & immorality?

In most disciplining churches the vast majority of discipline is over immorality. For example teens - 20 something and fornication. Homosexuality is a big one. Drug related problems. For adult men adultery and for women lack of submissiveness.

It can also be semi doctrinal. Debra Baker who started her own blog got disciplined over believing in demand feeding and disagreeing with corporal punishment for infants.

The meta thing is prevent a leftward drift, where left is obviously relative to the church.